EU influence on state liability in Finland Detailed
1. Korkein oikeus 05 Jul 2013, KKO 2013:58
In this case, the Finnish Supreme Court addressed the issue of state liability for damages arising from a breach of EU law. A limited liability company, not liable for VAT, imported a used car from Belgium to Finland in 2003. The company was subsequently ordered to pay VAT based on the car tax. The Supreme Court held that the Finnish Tax Act's requirement of intent or negligence for state liability conflicted with EU case law, which does not impose such conditions. Therefore, the court concluded that the Finnish state was liable for the damages caused by the breach of EU law.
2. Köbler v Republik Österreich
Although not a Finnish case, Köbler v Republik Österreich is pertinent as it established that Member States could be held liable for damages resulting from breaches of EU law by their courts. The European Court of Justice ruled that a Member State could be liable for damages caused by a court's failure to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) when required. This principle has been applied in Finland, emphasizing the responsibility of Finnish courts to uphold EU law and the potential for state liability in cases of judicial error.
3. Commission v Finland (Case C-118/07)
In this infringement case, the European Commission argued that Finland had failed to take appropriate measures to eliminate incompatibilities between its bilateral agreements with third countries and EU law. The CJEU ruled that Finland had not fulfilled its obligations under EU law, highlighting the importance of Member States aligning their international agreements with EU law. This case underscores the EU's influence in ensuring that Member States' external agreements do not conflict with EU obligations, reinforcing the principle of state liability for breaches of EU law.
4. Viking Line ABP v ITF and Finnish Seamen's Union
This case involved the Finnish company Viking Line's decision to reflag its vessel to Estonia to reduce labor costs, which led to industrial action by trade unions. The CJEU ruled that the right to take collective action could be restricted if it interferes with the freedom of establishment under EU law. While not directly about state liability, the case illustrates the balance between national labor rights and EU economic freedoms, influencing Finnish legal interpretations of state obligations under EU law.
5. Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet
In this case, the CJEU addressed the conflict between the right to take collective action and the freedom to provide services within the EU. The court held that while the right to strike is fundamental, it must be exercised in a manner that does not unjustifiably restrict the freedom to provide services. This decision has implications for Finnish labor law, particularly in balancing national rights with EU economic freedoms, affecting how state liability is considered in cases involving industrial action.
These cases collectively illustrate the significant influence of EU law on the concept of state liability in Finland. They demonstrate how Finnish courts and legal institutions interpret and apply EU principles to ensure that individuals can seek redress for damages resulting from breaches of EU law by the state. The evolving case law continues to shape the landscape of state liability, reinforcing the EU's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals within Member States.
RELATED Blog
0 comments